Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Let her speak please”

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 723 posts

Re: “Let her speak please”

#551

Post by rustynails77 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #515
t_brah wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No, the effects of deliberate, targeted differences in socialization by gender aren't the fault of the people experiencing adverse impacts because of the intersection of those with social structures that respond better to people socialized in the manner which is targeted at the other gender. I've heard this argument before - that women are deliberately socialized to be subordinate. Personally, I believe in the stren…

> I've heard this argument before - that women are deliberately socialized to be subordinate. That's because it's a fairly well established fact. > Personally, I believe in the strength & agency of women. Yeah, so do I. That doesn't negate the effects of differential socialization; objective external circumstances have real impacts.

>> I've heard this argument before - that women are deliberately socialized to be subordinate. >That's because it's a fairly well established fact.

Citation please. Work from Dr Simon Baron Cohen, the Director of Autism Research Centre (ARC) in Cambridge, appears to clash with your statement. He is an expert in child psychology and has conducted tests on young babies and noted strong trends based on gender at less than 12 months of age. This, at least in my mind, does not align with your "well established fact" that behaviour is socially driven and would point to biological differences playing a significant factor. If you're going to cite a well established fact, it's value adding to provide credible sources because hear-say doesn't progress an intelligent conversation.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#552

Post by Sacho »

ethbro wrote: post #248
roberto wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't find the study, but men interrupt women much more than they interrupt men. Also, women interrupt other women more than they interrupt men as well.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/07/23/study_m... Men are 3x as likely to interrupt women. Women will interrupt women, but rarely men. Informal study, but decent sample size.

I don't think this informal study presents as strong of an argument as you may think it does. As the author themselves admitted, seniority was strongly correlated with rate of interruption, but they didn't control for that in their overall gender comparison. The top three out of four interrupters were women. As it turns out, that particular set of people had a lower number of women in positions of seniority. Is that not a plausible explanation, or at least a confounding factor that you would like to eliminate, before you declare that men interrupt x3 as much?

Re: “Let her speak please”

#553

Post by zamalek »

lubesGordi wrote: post #489
ryanmarsh wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People get talked over by people. I see this all the time and it's generally sexless. As a consultant I've helped at least 100 teams have crucial conversations across tens of businesses. I don't get the constant refrain that this is a male vs. female thing.

Totally, this is her political perception grid overlaying reality. If Jim Holt or whoever thought that her theories were contradictory, then likely he would've talked over whoever was sitting there, regardless of sex. It could have had as much to do with his condescension to what he perceived as an inferior theory as anything.

> theories were contradictory

That's actually a desirable quality. It means that you are not emotionally attached to your theories (you shouldn't be, it's science not religion) and are willing to contradict them. Still, most people would think that a bad thing.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#554

Post by fatbird »

turc1656 wrote: post #512
fatbird wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"pulled a quick definition from the web" is virtually never a useful way to engage something like this. It's like quoting a statute from the law books and ignoring a long history of case law that defines how that law actually works in practice.

That's a fair enough point. I'll strengthen my position this way instead. Let's assume the definition is garbage and ignore it. Are stereotyping examples things that fall into the category of sexism? I think they absolutely are. And I think most people would agree. "Women aren't as good as men at [whatever]" - sexist? Yep "Women often have difficulty interrupting in the way that the men here did" - sexist? Sure sound…

You're doubling down on your quick definition by pushing a simpler, even broader definition that's more trivially satisfied. This isn't an issue of categories and word use, it's an issue of history and culture and every incident is tied up in a large amount of context. This is exactly why simplifying terms and definitions fail here. It's not the land of referential transparency.

I can't say whether either of your statements are substantially sexist because they only have real meaning once you get at what underlies each one. "Women aren't as good at men at critical thinking because they're genetically programmed for motherhood while men are programmed for leadership" seems very sexist because it's talking about essential traits of men and women. "Women aren't as good at interrupting as men are because they're socialized to be deferential while men are socialized to dominate" seems not sexist because it's describing an accident of history that could as easily be the other way.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#555

Post by fatbird »

t_brah wrote: post #535
dragonwriter wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've heard this argument before - that women are deliberately socialized to be subordinate. That's because it's a fairly well established fact. > Personally, I believe in the strength & agency of women. Yeah, so do I. That doesn't negate the effects of differential socialization; objective external circumstances have real impacts.

It is possible for both things to be true at once: * For women to have strength & agency * For external circumstances & socialization to have impacts on individuals But what I don't understand is how you can maintain simultaneously that women are strong & have agency, but must receive corrective action sensitive to gender-differentiated effects. Are the strong women you're thinking of incapable of overcoming societal…

When I was little and my brother was hitting me, I was always capable of moving away from him so he couldn't hit me. The right thing, though, was for him to stop hitting me.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#556

Post by alttab »

croon wrote: post #264
andrepd wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you watch the rest of the video you will find the moderator imposes himself and cuts off the panellists and talks over them multiple times, seemingly regardless of gender. This makes me strongly inclined to believe that this incident had nothing to do with sexism, but rather with the annoyingly dominant and imposing personality of the moderator. Maybe you think otherwise. Why would you say this incident is a "pain…

> If you watch the rest of the video you will find the moderator imposes himself and cuts off the panellists and talks over them multiple times, seemingly regardless of gender. Honest question: Did you watch the rest of the video? I did and completely disagree with your assessment.

If you both watched it, we could simply count the number of interruptions and see if she was interrupted statistically significantly more.

There's an objective answer and opinions don't really count here.

Re: “Let her speak please”

#557

Post by odbol_ »

travmatt wrote: post #380
jccalhoun wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you wear sexism-colored glasses, don't be surprised if everything looks like sexism." and if you wear glasses that block out sexism, don't be surprised if nothing looks like sexism.

It's magical sexism. Everyone agrees in the abstract that sexism must exist, but there are no actual incidents that can be positively attributed to sexism.

"No actual incidents"

Have you been living under a rock? There are more than enough examples.

Here's just a few examples documenting the sexism in science:

http://www.nature.com/news/gender-imbalance-in-science-journ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2...

Re: “Let her speak please”

#558

Post by pokemongoaway »

Ensorceled wrote: post #47
humanrebar wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this whole thread about not letting people talk over you? Only listening and not being able to contribute back to what should be a conversation? Everyone has the right to express frustration, I think.

You missed the point entirely. This thread is specifically and pointedly about men speaking over top women, especially when there is a power differential (panelist vs. moderator in this case). Not about the general problem of needing to speak up for yourself.

How is it that you get to decide what this is about by interpreting the article with a certain slant, and then use that slant to say he's not discussing actually 'your' point?

Re: “Let her speak please”

#559

Post by croon »

oh_sigh wrote: post #435
croon wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her words: > I had early on decided that I like physics so much that I’d be quite willing to give up quite a bit of other comforts for it, but perhaps having made that decision and bracing oneself, then made the actual “discomforts” not only more bearable, but genuinely less discomforting. I think the subjective severity of a lot of these issues can be greatly influenced by one’s mindset, one’s psychology. If you all…

I like how you quote her response where she is talking about sexism in general(which certainly exists), when I and OP were talking about the specific event, and whether it was sexism. Why didn't you quote this part instead? > Maybe I’m too naive, but I simply gave him the benefit of doubt that he was so excited by the newly-learned idea of the duality that he couldn’t resist, and that the same might have occurred had…

Because:

1) Regardless of whether she experienced the sexism or not, there is only one response she can publicly express, namely the one she did.

2) There was evidently an entire room/audience that did audibly agree with the "hecklers" sentiment, and many privately expressed so afterwards.

3) Sexism doesn't only exist when the object of it register it.

4) The proof is in the pudding, if you bother to watch through the entire panel. (I did)

Re: “Let her speak please”

#560

Post by xchip »

I am a male and when I am talked over I have to say something like "hold on let me finish" and that fixes it :D It's not a male vs female thing, it's just that everyone gets too excited, it happens to me too sometimes :D

The moderator talks too much along the whole video. Not a sexist thing though.

A link on how to handle interrupts: http://www.marionspeaks.com/_blog/Marions_Communication_Tips...

Post reply on HN